so will i be working until i'm 80 then?

[southeastastra]

wouldn't be surprised

Please do not go down the road of turning this into an intergenerational scrap. If you must then get your facts right. e.g. I am a baby boomer, born 1946. I started full time work at 15 not 16 and paid NI immediately but have since discovered that contributions only count towards your pension after age 18. Child benefit, 8 shillings a week, only paid for 2nd child stopped when I started work. I had an eight year break to have 2 children, no credited contributions for this period either = not the full old age pension for me. No maternity benefits, CTC, help with childminding, no works pension because I married young and was thereafter treated as temporary staff and later worked in the low paid voluntary sector where funding never allowed for staff pensions. Much later I started a private pension which has now been converted to an annuity paying £200 a month, less tax, and does not quite cover monthly council tax (which might have been paid for me if I had not been stupid enough to save).

I am retired now, only 63, but there is no way I could still be working - I have really severe restless leg syndrome - perhaps I could work nightshift, as I rarely get to sleep until 5.30 or 6.00 am. Besides who would do the free child minding which has allowed my 2 daughters to resume their careers?

I do understand the resentment towards those like my sister and her DH who cashed in their civil service pensions at age 55, paid off their mortgage and have been galivanting about for approaching 20 years already. Remember that not everyone from my generation was so lucky!

"the extravagant pay that allows many to retire early and in complete comfort"

The majority of people working for investment banks do not earn extravagant money.

Boomers have it better than we ever will, though.

If you think it's bad now, as a boomer, well, it's going to get a whole lot worse for those of us who are around 40 right now.

"it's going to get a whole lot worse for those of us who are around 40 right now."

If you're 40 today you've got at least 25 years to do something positive about your retirement prospects. 'It's going to get a whole lot worse'... only if you sit back and let it.

well, chil, i'm working poor. there is literally nothing left to save at the end of the month, and it's going to get worse with VAT hikes and the like.

so it's not just a matter of sitting back and not being 'positive'.

people think positively and are proactive about their cancer all the time and still die.

Well you seem to have decided that you're condemned to a miserable old age. I don't know what went wrong in your life to think that that it's basically all over age 40 but you have my sympathy for being in such a terrible & hopeless situation. However, it would be wrong to take your individual experience and extrapolate from it that everyone the same age as you is in the same boat. They're not.

right back atcha

Well, go there then, chil.

I joined Exit. That's my solution.

Sorted.

I am not saying it is bad now - we have spent a lifetime keeping our heads just above water and have learnt to be very frugal, grow our own fruit and veg, cook from scratch, make do & mend, etc., etc. We are perfectly content with our lives/income, we never strove to be rich, rather to do our best for our family, do our bit for society and pay our way. Like you I plan a quick, quiet exit when I cease to be 'useful'. If we should get a small windfall or inheritance it goes straight to our DDs/DGC anyway - we have enough.

I empathise with your current housing situation ex-pat because we were similarly stuck in a firetrap council hellhole with 2 small children, (regular fights, man covered in blood knocking at the door, washing stolen, upstairs neighbour's toddler abducted, downstairs neighbour's fingers amputated by close door)and we could not get a mortgage as DH did not earn enough and his casual earnings as a musician and wife's earnings were not taken into account. We did eventually manage to get out by saving a third of the cost of a semi-derilict cottage which is now paid in full but still not quite finished.

I really cannot see how my generation 'had it better'. All my friends were working mums, we had our families young so our mothers were still working and could not help out, we only got 2 weeks annual leave so school holidays were a nightmare, with mum, dad, granny and,in my case, my sister taking our 2 weeks on a rota basis to 'mind the kids'.

I look at the lifestyles my DDs and their contemporaries (around 40) have - EQUAL PAY, flexitime, 5 weeks annual leave, dishwasher, tumble dryer, central heating, 2 cars, paid maternity leave, employer funded pensions, free nursery places, free swimming and dancing classes, free rhyme time at the library, CTC, CB, spa weekends for birthdays and often two sets of car owning, still fit grandparents helping out practically and financially.

I know they are all burdened with huge mortgages but still have more disposable income than we ever did. I do not grudge them any of this - after all it is precisely what I fought for as an active feminist since the 60's. No, I do not grudge/envy them and am happy that my (albeit small) contributions of Income Tax and somewhat larger VAT, petrol and Council tax are helping to fund this. BUT there is no way that the now 40 somethings are having a harder time than we baby boomers did. Which is where I came into this discussion. There is nothing to be gained from one generation fighting another. We either progress together or not at all.

The only babyboomers I blame are the ones that used their free university educations to get themselves into positions of power, put an end to free tertiary education, tax the poor to fund the rich and line their own pockets while wrecking the economy.

Hmm, that is a different perspective, Granny.

My ILs, well, one was born during the war and the other is definitely a boomer.

They are better off even though they were working poor all their lives mainly because they do own a home outright and because it is worth far, far more than they paid for it.

And they do have a state pension to draw.

To be quite frank, I see NI was another tax.

I truly don't think there'll be a penny to get out of that when people like DH, age 32, reach 65 or even 70.

"The only babyboomers I blame are the ones that used their free university educations to get themselves into positions of power, put an end to free tertiary education, tax the poor to fund the rich and line their own pockets while wrecking the economy."

Amen to that, Granny

Amen to that, Granny. I always knew what Labour were really all about.

Ex-pat did your in laws inherit the house or did they have to pay a mortgage at 12% or 13% for 25 years as we did. Granted we bought our house for £4,500 and it is now probably worth £140,000 but would sell for less today. We are not looking to sell as we get older, it is already all on the flat, we never did manage to put 2 bedrooms upstairs for the DDs. Anyway, we need somewhere to live, so although we have this big asset it is not available to turn into cash, equity release schemes are a total con, it will only become cash when we are both dead.

Be glad that your In Laws are financially secure and that you do not have to contribute to their upkeep. We did not have to do that but our parents had to provide for their old parents in the bad old days before the welfare state.

Granny, they bought it from a housing association.

And we could not afford to pay to keep them, but I see what you mean, and am eternally grateful for it.

My parents, too, were able to make provision for themselves in old age.

They are not boomers, having been born well before the war and shortly before America entered it, respectively.

My father admits at every opportunity that circumstance and luck coincided with his work ethic to make this possible, however.

In the past, too, though, so many people just didn't live so long on the whole and/or in health.

When my mother's mother died, age 84, she had been very ill the last year and I had gone 'home', a bit over a thousand miles from where I lived, to sit with her till she left this life for the next, which turned out to be only 6 weeks.

I was a legal secretary then, and thankfully, work was very plentiful, so I took unpaid leave of absense from my job and took up temporary work in my hometown, living at my parents', to see her off, as there is no welfare in the US for such a situation and so you must get you some work to keep you somehow, and I'd a mortgage to pay.

She was a grande old dame, French to the core, and she'd have my light her cigarette and speak to me in the garden of the nursing home where she breathed her last.

One thing she'd say again and again was that living long can be a poisoned chalice.

It's an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless.

You speak wise words, Granny.

claig, do you really think that the only baby boomers Granny23 talks about are Labour???

Thought you were smarter than that...

Thanks ex-pat. You too speak much wisdom on here (except in regard to the Labour Party )

You know you should write. You paint wonderful word pictures, have just conjured up your obviously much loved Grandmother for us all and told us a story in four succinct sentances. If you spent, say 50% of the time you spend on Mumsnet, writing seriously, you could easily have a career as a writer. With your many and varied experiences you certainly could write a better column than most of the tripe that passes muster in our Newspapers, or a book of short stories?? - I'd buy that!

Granny23,
I?m a baby boomer too, born in 1955, but I had my children late (late 30s and early 40s), so I empathise with younger parents. A couple of points about your posts puzzle me.
Why did Child Benefit stop when you started working? Family Allowance (as it was then known) didn?t stop when I worked. I?ve asked my mother whether it stopped when she worked and it didn?t. You have also omitted to mention that your husband would have also received an additional tax allowance for the children. This was worth more for people in higher tax brackets. It was the Conservative government in the 1990s which started the process to abolish the tax allowances for children and married couples. Family Allowance/Child Benefit was increased to compensate and also generally paid the money to the main carer, usually the mother. It?s surely better that Child Benefit is paid at a higher rate for the first child and is less generous for subsequent children, as the outlay for the first child is higher and discourages people from having big families just for the benefits.

Why did the fact that you started your family early mean that you couldn?t work towards a better paid job? You could have studied for qualifications if that was the problem. My mother (born in 1931) left school at 16, was married at 21 and had three children in her 20s. My father was made redundant when my mother was in her mid 30s, so she went back to work full-time, gained a few promotions and ended up with quite a senior job in a national company. She realised she wouldn?t qualify for a full state pension, so started making provision in her early 40s. We were latch key kids, but I can?t say it did us much harm. I have always worked full-time and by the time I start drawing state pension when I?m 65+ I will have 44+ years NIC contributions. I?m afraid I don?t have much sympathy for pensioners (especially baby boomers) who didn?t plan for their old age. They lived through times of almost full employment and the opportunity was there. Staying at home with children or paying reduced contributions (an option for older baby boomers) was a life-style choice and I don?t think the younger generation should be paying for it now.

Interests rates were indeed higher in the 1970s, but property prices were much lower. I bought my first property in 1982. It cost £17,999 and I got a 100% mortgage paying 16.5%. The mortgage was three times my starting salary of £6k as a teacher. It was tough for the first year or so and I didn?t have basic furniture at the beginning. However, do some sums. A teacher starting out now would earn about £20k, but the flat I bought in 1982 is now worth about £120k. Even with low interest rates, there is no way a newly qualified single teacher could buy that flat without a very hefty deposit.

Your children have been lucky that you have provided free childcare, but many of the younger generation don?t have that option, as they don't have family living nearby. They are forced to work by high property prices and childcare is expensive. My own children were in nursery full-time when I went back to work and I then paid for out-of-school care. The voucher scheme started when my older dc was about 4 and I received some CTC. It was tough, but nowhere near as expensive as it is now. Middle income families receive very little help through CTCs. A family income of £50k might seem a lot to a baby boomer, but it isn?t really with high property and childcare costs.

The state pension currently costs the country more than the total budget for schools?and costs would have continued to spiral if something hadn?t been done. Something should have been done years ago to tackle the demographic timebomb.
According to the ONS, in 2006/07, pensioner couples received an average income of £508 per week, compared with £267 per week for single men and £240 per week for single women. Average gross pensioner incomes increased by 39 per cent in real terms between 1994/95 and 2006/07, ahead of the growth in average earnings. Obviously average incomes conceal considerable variations between poorer and richer pensioners. Nevertheless, the statistics do show that not all pensioners are poor, especially as many won?t be paying a mortgage or rent. I expect there are many young families who wish they had a weekly income of £508!

I agree with you that there shouldn?t be inter-generational conflict, but it is generally the baby boomers themselves who moan that young people have never had it so good. The issue really should be about society caring for the less wealthy and most vulnerable. Many younger people are starting their adult lives with massive student debt, owning property is unaffordable, unemployment is likely to rise as jobs become even more scarce, depression is likely to rise, caused by uncertainty as jobs for life disappear. To add insult to injury, they will have to pay more, work for longer and receive less ? I have to say I?m glad I?m a baby boomer and not one of the younger generation.

Sorry this was such a ramble!

"claig, do you really think that the only baby boomers Granny23 talks about are Labour???"

Ponders, Granny23 said
"The only babyboomers I blame are the ones that used their free university educations to get themselves into positions of power, put an end to free tertiary education, tax the poor to fund the rich and line their own pockets while wrecking the economy."

the only babyboomers that count are those in power and those who implemented policies to end free education and to wreck the economy, not the ordinary babyboomer in employment up and down the land.

It was Plunkett who was the advocate of student loans
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1998/jun/09/Whitehall.uk
and it was Brown who wanted to charge the poor 27% on emergency loans
www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/article-1099183/Labour-MPs-revolt-Browns-plan-charge-27-emergency-l oans-poor.html

these champagne socialists are hypocrites, they are just gofers for the rich and powerful. They are the same crowd who are anti grammar schools, stopping poor amd middle class children gaining a great education, whilst sending their own children to private schools.

Claig, I think this is going off-topic, while not denying that grammar schools and student loans are topics in their own right. Neither is actually as black and white in political party terms as they appear.

I'm not denying that grammar and direct grant schools gave a handful of baby boomers a great education paid for by the state. I had a free place at a direct grant school. I actually believe that my children are having as good an education at our local very good comp, although I am in no way denying that some comps are terrible.

What most people forget is that the first comps were in the Tory shires, such as Leicestershire. The existing grammar schools couldn't cope with the numbers from the growing middle-class, who hated the idea of their DCs going to secondary mods. Grammar schools catered for a minority and varied from one authority to another.

The system of student maintenance collapsed with the growing numbers in HE. The better off never did get maintenance. As a student in the 1970s on a full grant, I had many a discussion with fellow students whose parents were wealthier than mine. Labour's idea was to target the money available at the children of the least wealthy. My dd is hoping to go to uni next year and will receive a full maintenance grant based on my current income and a bursary of £500-£1500pa, depending where she goes. Admittedly, she will have to pay top-up fees (introduced by Labour), but I happen to think that's fair, as she can expect to earn more over lifetime than somebody without a degree.

daphnedill, I agree it is not black and white and that all parties are to blame. But, in my opinion, the worst of the lot are the hypocrites who pretend that they are on the side of the people, and then do the opposite.

Claig, I agree with you absolutely, but hypocrites aren't confined to the "Nulabour". I could happily punch Tony Blair and some of his cronies in the face...and then punch David Cameron with the other fist! I honestly think we've got a lot worse to come.

Daphnedill just to answer some of your questions. It was my mother's Family Allowance which stopped when I started work. At that time FA was not paid for the 1st child, so although my elder sister was still at school the FA stopped.

Yes my DH got an extra tax allowance for our 2 DDs.

I worked in a bank from age 15 to 23 and had to leave work when I was pregnant with DD1. I was supposed to leave before I started to 'show' but in the event worked on until 3 weeks before baby was due as they had a difficulty finding a fully trained replacement for me. I was in a small branch with only 4 staff - Manager, senior clerk, me and an apprentice. I had an above scale payment for extra responsibilities and actually earned more than DH.

As a female I was classed as a 'probationery clerkess' rather than an apprentice and so I was not sent to college on day release. Instead I went to 'night school' at my own expense and got a bunch of qualifications. When I re-applied to the bank when my youngest started school, they said they were sorry, they would love to have me back but there was a blanket policy against women with young children because they could not work late at a moment's notice.

I always paid the higher rate of NI but because the calculation deducts the contributions before age 18 and there were no NI credits for years at home with children back in the 70's I only have 32 years of contributions.

The main reason I started my pension fund so late was that I suddenly discovered that DH's two (self employed) pension funds, which I had paid for years from my higher earnings, would pay out £0000 if he died before retirement age. We had always looked upon these as OUR pension funds and that was a big shock. Thankfully he did survive to 65 for one and 70 for the other.

It is not just luck that my DD's are close by - they both sold city flats to buy small family homes near 'home' before their babies arrived. Now they benefit from free shared childcare but suffer a long and expensive commute. Swings and roundabouts!!

A final point to Claig - Yes, I did mainly mean Labour politicians. I am no Tory but at least they do what it says on the tin unlike LABOUR whose principles are great but whose practice is appalling.

They should be encouraging us to eat fatty foods and smoke, that way we will die earlier!

In all seriousness, I don't agree about the bit about men doing manual labour while women are in offices. Sorry, care assistants are in the majority women, and cleaners, both are very hard physical work. Perhaps not heavy lifting, but still quite demanding, especially if you do it full time.

My friend has just retired (at 64 and diabetic) as a nearly full time cleaner. One of her daily properties was an old 3 story manor house converted to offices and it was having to heave an industrial hoover up and down three sets of stairs that finally broke her spirit if not her back.

Think your suggestion re fatty foods and cigs is the way to go! They could be offered VAT and duty free to over 60's thereby also allowing a cut in pension rates. BTW many pubs and chippies are already offering fat laden pensioners lunches and suppers at a reduced rate. I will have to indulge myself and stop eating all our home grown fruit and veg.

[Resolves to become more sedentary too]

been watching this thread with interest!

i do wonder what the impact will be on the voluntary sector if the retirement age does continue to increase - my MIL works 2 days/week for our local hospice charity shop which is entirely run by volunteers the majority of whom are ladies of current retirement age. (She also helps out with childcare for myself and my SIL) Without the volunteers the shop wouldnt run.

Would this be one of the hidden costs to raising retirement age?